About time

Isaac Newton elevated the common sense notion of time by describing it as a absolute that "flows from God". In spite of relativity, time is still a fundamental assumption in physics. It simply lost its absolute nature and became relative. Philosophically, Einstein once said that the only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once. To Einstein, playing the role of physicist rather than philosopher, time is what clocks indicate. He once complained that he could form no clear conception of space. It seems that he was satisfied, as a physicist, to simply work with clocks and what they would indicate under various conditions and let it go at that.

If the Big Bang cosmology is correct, clocks and time began with the Big Bang. Physics has no explanation of the "nothingness" before time began. It's interesting that the physicists Wheeler and Dewitt combined classical with quantum physics in a mathematical formulation that has a "superspace" but no time parameter (and no explanation of how superspace and mathematics came into being out of nothingness). It's said this formulation generates all kinds of strange universes, some of which only last for just a few minutes. Apparently, time can be a parameter in at least some of the universes the superspace can generate. But so far as the Wheeler-DeWitt superspace goes, all universes exist "at once". That, of course, is what mystics have always claimed. Time has no fundamental meaning. Universes seem to be mental creations or ideas ... products of conscious energy gestalts.

About zombies

Artificial intelligence (AI) machines have already beat chess grand masters and displayed mathematical/logical creativity. Progress in vision systems and speech recognition make it seem likely that human-like robots possessing astronomical intelligence, far in excess of human intelligence, are not far off. In what follows, I create no science fiction or make any greatly futuristic speculations. I'm talking about robots of the very near future. It's easy to envision a Spock-like robot that might also have superior sensory and motor equipment, as well as vastly superior intelligence and very quick associative memory to information in large storage banks. Early robots would have no need of senses of taste and smell .... just sight, hearing and touch. Tactile feedback would enable the robot to better manipulate objects, and also provide them with a defense mechanism (heat sensors) against hot ovens, etc., which would do them damage.

Ones impression when carrying on a conversation with such a early robot would be that the robot is overly literal. It would often ask you for clarification of your terms and the exact meaning of your sentences. Philosophers will be delighted with them but the average person would find them far too Spock-like, unemotional and frustrating. Engineers, mathematicians, and most other professionals will find find them to be extremely useful and helpful. It's doubtful that their designers will do a good job of providing them with a simulated sense of surprise and irony causing them to produce a simulated laugh. Yet, despite their eccentricities, they will probably seem to be conscious and very alert.

Now, humans tend to score statistically better than chance when tested for psychic abilities such as telepathy or PK. So do other animals. In my opinion, that sort of testing would be the criteria for determining consciousness. Biological systems and AI will always be different in that regard. AI will not have this kind of paranormal capability. Again, my definition of conscious energy includes this interconnectedness of all things which is reflected in the various paranormal powers we commonly refer to as "psychic" powers and abilities. The robots will lack a psyche and a "conscious unconscious" at the inner core of their beings.
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg